David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Lafayette, Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the former attorney general of California, my friend from Folsom, a hardworking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York, the distinguished Chair on the Committee of Rules for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in the strongest possible opposition to this rule and the underlying legislation. I could start this debate by quoting my Democratic colleagues on the Rules Committee when they decried Republican tactics over the last few years, how they railed against closed rules and chided me personally. I am a big guy, I can handle it. But they attacked me personally constantly for denying amendments that were offered by both Democrats and Republicans. I could quote every instance that they promised to do better, to have the most open and fair Congress in the history of this country, and to not have late- night meetings. But today, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to do that. I am going to recognize that that would simply distract from this very, very important issue. Instead, I am going to simply provide the House, Mr. Speaker, and you witnessed much of this last night, with a factual account of what took place in the wee hours of this morning. Shortly before 1 a.m., the Rules Committee on party-line votes reported out two self-executing closed rules, and denied the consideration of some 70 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee from both Republicans and Democrats as well. That is what happened. There is no denying it. You, Mr. Speaker, witnessed it yourself when you were upstairs in the Rules Committee. So regardless of the process, this supplemental appropriations bill is a constitutionally dubious attempt at micromanaging the Iraq war into what I believe would be inevitable defeat if it succeeds. It enjoys such limited support on the other side of the aisle that it had to be ladened with unrelated pork in order to win enough votes to have any hope of passing. It is a cynical ploy that will leave dire consequences for the region, and for our own security, in its wake. The Constitution lays out a very clear system of checks and balances derived from the ideas of the Framers of our Constitution. By giving the three branches of government distinct roles, we guard ourselves against tyranny; we guard ourselves as individuals against tyranny in each branch. The President cannot wage war without authorization or funding from Congress. But if authorization and funding are granted, the President serves as the Commander in Chief with the authority to execute the war. Mr. Speaker, this bill ignores the intentions of those Framers, and it attempts to turn the Constitution on its head. James Madison, Father of the Constitution, the author of the Constitution in Federalist No. 51, wrote, and I quote, ``In framing a government that is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place oblige it to control itself.'' Mr. Speaker, Madison recognized the inherent challenges in designing a government that is both effective and limited. He knew that, without checks and balances, tyranny would, in fact, ensue. This bill attempts to diminish these checks and balances. It tries to turn Congress into a collection of 535 Commanders in Chief. This legislation of micromanagement is based on a disastrous strategy. Its authors fund the war, and then mandate its failure. They seek to tie the hands of our military commanders, and then force them to retreat when they are unable to meet impossible timetables. They mandate the withdrawal with no regard for the situation on the ground, and then they sweeten the deal with $15 billion in money that is unrelated spending that has got a little something in there for practically everyone: $283 million for the milk income lost contract program; $74 million for peanut storage costs; $1.3 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers. Billions and billions of dollars for these projects, some worthy, some not. But none of them related to the troops, and what this is, this is a war funding supplemental. None of these are emergency items. Their only connection to emergency supplemental appropriations for the war, Mr. Speaker, in Iraq, is that they are necessary to build support for this bill, a bill that trades victory for electoral gains. Make no mistake, this legislation is a political solution for Democrats, not a strategy for winning in Iraq. And what would the consequences of defeat be? The National Intelligence Estimate, the 9/11 Commission, and our people on the ground have all made it very clear that a precipitous withdrawal would have catastrophic consequences. The carnage of the battle of Baghdad that we are witnessing today will be just the beginning. Violence will spill out across the country and spread to the entire region. In our absence, Iran and Syria will be utterly unfettered in their ability to incite a regional war that threatens global security, with enormous casualties suffered by the people of the region. Proponents of a policy of defeat often point to our diminished standing in the international community. But what about our standing with the Iraqi people? Terrorist attacks on our own soil have demonstrated that our security and their security are directly linked. And, Mr. Speaker, Operation Iraqi Freedom has bound us even more closely. We have a commitment to help the Iraqi people establish lasting security through democracy. We have a commitment not to abandon them to be slaughtered by terrorists. And if we retreat, we not only abandon the Iraqi people, we draw terrorism back to our own doorstep. Have we so soon forgotten the tragedy of attacks on our homeland? We took the war on terror to the terrorists and have suffered not one attack since September 11 of 2001. With this bill, we would bring the war on terror back home. Only this time we will have strengthened the terrorists ourselves with a road map for success. We will have demonstrated precisely what it takes to defeat the United States of America. We will have clearly signaled to them that they must simply bide their time until the mandated retreat, at which time they will be able to terrorize with impunity. I, like many Americans, Mr. Speaker, have been discouraged by this war. We all feel the toll that it has taken. And we are keenly aware of the price that we are paying, especially in a human sense. Every one of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, has, as I have, looked in the faces of constituents whose family and friends have made the ultimate sacrifice in this war. Their pain is very real, and their loss is profound. I regularly talk to a man called Ed Blecksmith whose son J.P. was tragically killed 2 years ago this past November in the very famous battle of Fallujah. And he has, time and time again, said to me, if we don't complete this mission, my son J.P. will have died in vain. But we do not honor those who have sacrificed by abandoning their mission. We do not honor those in the field who are fighting, as we speak, by tying their hands and depriving them of the means to succeed. We will honor them by winning the war in Iraq so that our men and women come home having completed their mission. We know that their mission will not be complete in the immediate future. As President Bush and General David Petraeus have both acknowledged, success will take months, not days or weeks. But there are signs of hope that the President's new plans, under General Petraeus, are working. As Brian Williams of NBC reported from the field in Iraq, he said, ``This change in policy, getting out, decentralizing, going into the neighborhoods, grabbing a toehold, telling the enemy we are here, talking to the locals, that is having an obvious and palpable effect. There are hopeful signs.'' That was said by the NBC news anchor, Brian Williams. Mr. Speaker, to abandon our mission now would be disastrous. I urge my colleagues to reject the policy of defeat, reject the return of terrorism to our homeland, and reject this unconstitutional power grab whose sole purpose is to cede victory to our enemies. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a very hardworking member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Marietta, Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a former member of the Committee on Rules, who works hard on the Armed Services Committee now.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Bridgeport, Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the former chairman of the National Security Subcommittee, who has made 15 trips to Iraq.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the ranking Republican on the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Janesville, Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Goddard, Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to another hardworking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Dallas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to another hardworking member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Miami (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Again, this description of the District of Columbia as a special entity is absolutely right. That is what the Framers of our Constitution wanted to do in establishing the District of Columbia to ensure that it is not a State. That is the uniqueness of the District of Columbia. And I am arguing that if, in fact, we need to make this change so that it complies with Article I, section 2, it seems to me there needs to be a modification to the Constitution.

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would yield to me for a moment. I thank my friend for yielding, and I really do appreciate him, and he is my new friend on the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that it is Article I, section 2, to which I point where it refers to the fact that this body, according to the Constitution, is to become comprised of Members elected from the several States. And that is why I argue that if, in fact, we are going to do this, we should look at a way in which the District of Columbia becomes a State so that it can, in fact, comply with the Constitution.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I would simply argue, based on the point that has been made by that great expert Mr. Turley, we need to look at amending the U.S. Constitution before we go down that road. And we also have to look at how it is we are going to pay for this. Are we going to pay for it by basically imposing a tax on the average taxpaying citizen of this country by withholding dollars of theirs? I just think it is plain wrong.

Mr. DREIER. I want to express appreciation to my very good friend from Dallas and my new friend from New York for their management of this rule. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that to me it is very clear. Mr. Sessions' very able assistant just gave me a copy of the Constitution. Article 1, section 2 says: ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States.'' Until we change the Constitution and make the District of Columbia a State or include it as a State or as a part of Maryland, it seems to me that this is unconstitutional. I mean, I am not a constitutional expert, but I know that Mr. Sensenbrenner stood here. We had a wide range of other people who have been arguing. I listened this morning to that great constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley from George Washington University on National Public Radio. He was talking about this exact line that I just read, arguing that it is unconstitutional. I don't exactly understand why it is we are here. But there is something that hasn't been discussed at all in this debate, and that is how are we going to pay for this thing. We do know that we have got this structure that is put into place, PAYGO, as it's called. Well, there was mandatory spending in this to establish a new Member of Congress; and under PAYGO, the rules that are adopted, the costs clearly have to be offset. The offset that is self-executed into this bill, by the rule, raises the requirement for income tax withholding by three one-thousandths of a percent. It's a pretty tiny one. But it has the potential for some real problems. Think about the self-employed computer programmer who earns $80,000 a year. This computer programmer would have to calculate their estimated tax themselves and make quarterly payments to the government. If that computer operator misses that new three one-thousandths of 1 percent increase in withholding and underwithholds by as little as 6 cents per month, that person is subject to the Internal Revenue Service prosecuting them and seeking interest and penalties as if they were trying to evade paying their income taxes. Basically, I concluded that if the government is going to require that they are going to take money that they say you could potentially get back from this, it is a tax increase, because if the government holds money that is mine, no matter how small it is, and I am not getting interest on that money, that, to me, is a tax increase. That is exactly what we are going to be doing when any Member votes to pass this rule that allows us to proceed in this matter. I don't understand why it is that we are here. It is, to me, a very, very unfortunate thing. We now see how the Democrats intend to close the so-called tax gap, and it's on the backs of the average taxpayer in this country, and it is just plain wrong. I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule. If, by chance, we pass this rule, which, from my perspective, self-executes a tax increase on the average hard-working taxpayer in this country, I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill itself. One of the most ridiculous aspects of this rule is the mechanism used to pay for the mandatory spending in this bill. The bill provides for a new Member of Congress, and as a constitutional officer, that Member's salary is a mandatory expense. Under the PAYGO rules adopted by the House, those costs must be offset. The offset self-executed into the bill by the rule raises the requirement for income tax withholding by three one-thousandths of a percent. What does that mean to the average taxpayer? Well, for a married couple who both happen to be firefighters earning $80,000 a year, their interest-free loan to the government just went up by about $1.60. That's right, $1.60. But they do have to send approximately 13 cents per month more to the government to pay for a new congressional seat. That's not the worst part, though. Take the self-employed computer programmer who earns $80,000 per year. She has to calculate her estimated tax herself and make quarterly payments to the government. If she misses that new .003 percent increase in withholding, and under-withholds by as little as 6 cents per month she is subject to the IRS prosecuting her and seeking interest and penalties as if she were trying to evade paying her taxes. Mr. Speaker, we now see how the Democrats intend to close the so- called ``tax gap''--on the backs of average taxpayers, all to pay another Member of Congress.

Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield so I can respond to my friend?

Mr. DREIER. Absolutely. And I will tell you that when the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee last night began his testimony before the Rules Committee, he quoted both Kenneth Starr, and frankly I will say that it was with a great deal of pain and it was precedent-setting that our distinguished Judiciary Committee chairman Mr. Conyers and he said this, quoted for the first time, and I suspect maybe the last, Kenneth Starr, and he went on to refer to the fact that Viet Dinh had clearly concluded this. There are conflicting views as to the constitutionality of this. I recognize that. And, in fact, Mr. Sensenbrenner, when he was addressing the Rules Committee last night, said that he believed that this was a 50/50 call. I think that there are a lot of different opinions on it. Jonathan Turley is one that has spent a great deal of time looking at this, and I just happen to think that he is right. And the way I read the Constitution, that is the way I see it.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, last week I spoke here in the well about our service economy. Accounting for nearly 80 percent of both our workforce and private sector gross domestic product, services actually form the backbone of our economy. These industries are thriving in the worldwide marketplace and are a major source of our global competitiveness. Our annual exports in services are approaching $400 billion, and we have long had a trade surplus in this sector of the economy. Mr. Speaker, one such source is the motion picture and television production industry. This industry is a thriving economic engine, creating well-paying jobs and economic benefits to communities all across America, not just in my State of California. In fact, with filming in 44 States, the motion picture and television production industry generates more than 1.3 million American jobs, $30.24 billion in wages to American workers and $30.2 billion in revenue every year. It is very competitive internationally, with a $9.5 billion trade surplus. And it is the only industry, Mr. Speaker, it is our only industry in which we actually have a trade surplus with every single one of our trading partners. Motion pictures and television production creates jobs in a wide range of fields, from the highly technical to the highly creative. But one thing they have in common is that they are largely based on the knowledge economy that provides the foundation for both our economic well-being and our comparative advantage in the global economy. Another major services sector is the express delivery industry, Mr. Speaker. This is an industry that is not only thriving in the global economy, but it is actually making the global economy possible. In a world where just-in-time delivery is essential to doing business, where U.S. companies, large and small, can get raw materials from Chile, make products in Michigan and sell them in Korea, express delivery is obviously a very integral part of that economy. Goods transported by air account for only 3 percent by weight of all goods traded globally, but 40 percent of value. That is 3 percent in weight, but 40 percent in value. U.S. companies that ship worldwide are helping to grow our economy as they facilitate the interconnectedness of the world's producers and consumers. For example, Mr. Speaker, every time UPS adds 40 new international packages into its system, it creates a new job right here in the United States of America. Every day, in fact, UPS carries 8 percent of all U.S. gross domestic product and 3 percent of world global gross domestic product within its system. By tapping into the ever-growing need to ship worldwide, express delivery companies create new jobs here at home, facilitate economic growth around the globe and demonstrate that U.S. service companies are thriving in the worldwide marketplace. Mr. Speaker, the telecommunications industry is yet another example of American businesses that are both tapping into and facilitating a shrinking world that brings a globe-full of benefits and opportunities right to our doorstep here in the United States. U.S. telecom companies are extremely competitive in the global economy, with international revenues rising more than 12 percent in just the last year. 2006 was the third year in a row with double-digit growth in international revenue. The global telecom market is projected to reach $4.3 trillion by 2010. That is $1.2 trillion in the United States, but $3 trillion internationally. Clearly, the competitiveness of the U.S. industry depends upon worldwide economic global engagement. At the same time, these services are making the world more and more connected, enabling producers, consumers and investors to communicate quickly and easily with every corner of the globe. And, as we have seen, our service providers thrive on this increased connectiveness. As global leaders, they are constantly creating new opportunities, here at home and around the globe, as they grow our economy and make the worldwide marketplace more and more accessible for everyone. And they have done so at a time when worldwide economic liberalization in services has been very limited. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue on a path towards greater economic freedom so that our service industries, the backbone of our economy, can achieve greater and greater success in the global marketplace.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I stand today in opposition to this rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 1227, the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act of 2007. The stated goal of H.R. 1227--to facilitate the speedy recovery of renters and homeowners who are still displaced by Hurricane Katrina--is a worthy one. However, this legislation will not achieve this goal, and will in fact make matters worse. The Disaster Voucher Program is currently a temporary program, but H.R. 1227 would extend it into a permanent voucher. Furthermore, it would require HUD to provide tenant replacement vouchers for all public housing units not brought back on line, including those slated for demolition prior to the storms. In other words, this bill mandates the reconstruction of a previously flawed public housing system in New Orleans, rather than addressing root problems and looking for new solutions. In addition, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1227 not only calls for the reconstruction of a failed system, but it does so in a very costly manner. The CBO estimates that H.R. 1227 would increase direct spending by $224 million in 2007 and by $469 million between 2007 and 2012. H.R. 1227 simply ignores ``pay-as-you-go'' rules and provides new funding without finding a way to pay for it. Chairman Frank, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Financial Services, has stated that H.R. 1227 was symbolic of a commitment to helping the poor no matter what other priorities Congress has. Rather than offering those who face hardship a symbolic and irresponsible gesture, we should be looking at ways to encourage reform of New Orleans' public housing system and ensure a workable, sustainable program that actually meets the city's needs for quality housing. In the 109th Congress, the Republican Majority put in place a system to do exactly that. We provided more than $110 billion to hurricane- devastated Gulf Coast, including $16.7 billion for the Community Development Block Grant program. However, rather than simply attempt to re-establish a failed system, we required that states develop a comprehensive plan for addressing their housing needs. We demanded accountability, so that Katrina victims would have quality housing to return to. As HUD Secretary Jackson said last year, everyone who wants to return home to New Orleans should be allowed to do so. The Republican Majority offered the opportunity for a better home to return to. We should be focusing on how to implement a comprehensive, long-term plan to address this range of issues that challenge the Gulf Region. We can accomplish much of this with the funds that we already made available in the previous Congress. This bill, however, simply appropriates new funds to recreate old failures. It is not a solution; it is the perpetuation of problems. Mr. Chairman, Members were given notice late Friday that their amendments to H.R. 1227 would be due by early Monday morning. Hardly enough time for Members to formulate substantive amendments. I requested last night during the Rules Committee hearing that we grant this bill a modified open rule--one that allows any Member the opportunity to submit their amendments for consideration by preprinting them in the Congressional Record the day before. Unfortunately, we were denied, amendments were shut out yet again, and I believe this bill could suffer for it. Mr. Chairman, again, I oppose this restrictive rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to begin by thanking my friend from Miami and my friend from Fort Lauderdale. We have got this Sun Belt linkage now here. The only thing in between it was somebody from upstate New York there. And I know he likes that better than Los Angeles, as he told me up in the Rules Committee just before we were going into our last break. But I am proud that there are three of us at least who come from the Sun Belt who are representing this debate on this rule. Mr. Speaker, I do rise to reluctantly oppose both the rule and the underlying legislation. The bill is very well-intentioned, and it is designed to clarify and expand the laws regarding those who try to expose waste, fraud and mismanagement in the Federal Government. Whistleblowers, oftentimes, put their jobs at risk to expose wrongdoing in the workplace, and whistleblowers are absolutely crucial to our Nation's security, safety and success as well. I believe very much that their protection is an inherent right for all employees, and it needs to be maintained. In addition, the whistleblower protections enable Congress to fulfill our constitutional responsibility of overseeing the executive branch. It is imperative that we do that. We need to recognize that we are a separate and coequal branch of our Federal Government. We have a right to know the actions of the executive branch and to oversee the implementation of the laws that we create as Members of this body, and whistleblowers are a very crucial part of that. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do support the idea of expanding and modernizing whistleblower protection laws. But, unfortunately, I believe that this legislation ends up falling short of that very important goal to which I believe we all aspire. The bill aims to extend whistleblower protections to Federal workers who specialize in national security issues. These workers include employees of the FBI, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, among others. Unfortunately, the bill raises significant national security concerns that have really led me to conclude that I can't support this bill in its present form. Within its oversight obligations, Mr. Speaker, Congress is tasked with protecting highly classified intelligence programs. It is absolutely critical for us to ensure that any oversight is conducted by Members and staff with the appropriate experience and expertise. Now, this bill, in its current form, compromises that duty and outlines new procedures that have the potential to expose highly classified national security programs and information. Now, during the Rules Committee hearing yesterday, an amendment was offered by the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Mr. Hoekstra. And I just heard my friend from Fort Lauderdale, who has served very ably as a member of the Intelligence Committee, as well as on the Rules Committee, say that there is another amendment designed to address this. But, frankly, I believe very strongly that the amendment that was filed in a timely manner by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) was one that was not made in order, and I believe really best takes on this issue of dealing with a better way to ensure the security of this important, very important information. Now, Mr. Speaker, 10 amendments were offered at the Rules Committee, and while I commend the majority for making five of those 10 amendments in order, I do believe that an open rule would have been more appropriate. Give the Members of this body the opportunity to offer amendments to important pieces of legislation like this, not just on noncontroversial bills, which is what we have seen the open rule procedure used for in the past. At the very least, Mr. Speaker, I think we should have made all 10 of the amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee in order so that we could have had a free flowing debate on these, and we would have had a chance for people like the ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction here, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Mr. Davis, who served very ably as the chairman of that committee before we saw last November's election make this change. This former chairman, the now ranking member, sought to offer an amendment, and he also was denied a chance to offer that amendment. I do commend my California colleague, Mr. Waxman, the distinguished chairman of the committee, as well as Mr. Davis, for their hard work and expertise on this very critical issue. Unfortunately, I believe that the bill does, as I say, fall short of that goal. The goal really is an important one, as I said, to ensure that whistleblowers help us meet our constitutional responsibility for oversight of the executive branch. But the national security concerns that have been raised I think are such that, in its present form, I am not going to be able to support this measure. So, Mr. Speaker, I do urge my colleagues to vote against this rule. And as I said, I am troubled enough that the bill itself, in its current form, is not legislation that I can support.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, when we look at the issue of globalization and the rapid economic rise of countries like India and China, critical questions about the continued competitiveness of the U.S. economy are understandably raised. Are there industries where we still have a comparative advantage? Can we compete with countries that have more than a billion people? Will the power of our innovation maintain our global economic leadership? These are complicated questions that demand a thorough analysis of our economy, our strengths and our weaknesses and the policies we are pursuing. I have explored some of these very issues in recent weeks from some remarks I have been making here in the House. Actually, as we look at the very positive indicators we have in the U.S. economy, we are thriving because of our engagement in the worldwide marketplace. Because of the complexity of these issues, we need a rigorous, open and honest debate. But today I want to talk about an economic issue that is not at all complicated, Madam Speaker; a matter of benefits that is so clear and widespread that it may be the one single globalization issue that is too simple to refute, and that is the issue of our services industry. Services have become absolutely crucial to our economic growth, employment and international trade. This sector represents nearly 80 percent of both economic output and private employment in this country. Services are essential inputs into the production of virtually all products that we make, sell, buy or consume. The price and quality of services influence cost and productivity in all other sectors of the economy, including manufacturing and agriculture. Because our economy has come to rely on efficient, innovative and effective services, the industry has grown to become the largest part of our economy. In fact, services account for 78 percent of private sector GDP, or in excess of $8.5 trillion. This tremendous growth can be seen in our workforce as well. Since 1993, the services sector has added roughly 25 million new jobs to our economy, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that virtually all new employment in the United States over the next half decade will be in the area of services. While the issue of job creation is absolutely critical to the strength of our economy, the issue of job quality is absolutely critical to standards of living. Again, the services industry is at the cutting edge, creating jobs that pay very well. Services jobs pay an average of $51,045 annually. In many service industries, ranging from professional services, management services, wholesale trade, transportation and warehousing, financing, insurance, information services and others, the average compensation levels are significantly higher than that. These are the types of jobs that constantly offer the opportunity to learn new skills, develop expertise and continue to climb the economic ladder. These are not the hamburger-flipping jobs that the service industry has been maligned for in the past. These are high-quality, high-paying jobs that offer the chance of advancement and an ever-increasing quality of life, and they are the backbone of our economy. Just as the service industry has thrived here at home, it is tremendously competitive in the worldwide economy as well. Madam Speaker, U.S. financial services, express delivery, telecommunications, entertainment, audio-visual services and IT are achieving exceptional success around the globe. With 95 percent of the world's consumers outside of the United States, their presence in foreign markets is crucial for their global competitiveness. Today, the U.S. is the world's largest service exporter. U.S. services exports have reached nearly $400 billion annually, with a trade surplus of about $66 billion. Our services companies have built this record, even though faced with high and complex barriers in many key foreign markets. The service sector remains one of the most tightly closed and controlled industries within our trading partners around the world. The removal of these barriers is crucial to our continued competitiveness. As services become more liberalized, they will have an even more powerful effect on the competitiveness of our entire economy. When it comes to the issue of globalization, services are a clear example of American competitive advantage and global leadership. Some facets of the globalization debate involve complex issues and challenges that require a great deal of careful consideration and analysis for us to fully understand them. But the U.S. service industry stands out as a clear, irrefutable example of how the U.S. economy thrives through global engagement, and it is a powerful and compelling indicator of how much our economy has to gain by expanding that engagement with the rest of the world's consumers, producers, workers and investors. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue to pursue an economic agenda that empowers U.S. companies and entrepreneurs to harness the power of the worldwide marketplace to grow our economy right here at home.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Well, I just wondered if you wanted to give us some of your time.

Mr. DREIER. Would the gentlewoman like to yield me some of the time because we have got loads of people here who want to talk?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we are trying to get the resources necessary. With that, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to my very good friend, my California colleague who serves on the House Administration Committee, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, obviously there has been a great deal of thought and talk, and it has been understandable about the issue of ethics and lobbying reform. Last year, Speaker Hastert and I initiated a package that we passed through the House but, unfortunately, we were not able to come to an agreement in the Senate. On the opening day, 430 Members voted to put into place unprecedented ethics reform, unprecedented ethics reform. Why? Because the American people know we should be held to the highest possible standards. Now, there is an expression that I think is a very important one, and that is ``put your money where your mouth is.'' Now the very distinguished Chair of the committee on ethics, my good friend Mrs. Jones, talked about the fact that she wants to address this as concerns come forward. Mr. Speaker, this is the committee funding measure that we are bringing to the floor. We are doing some other things to it, self- executing establishment of a committee, but we are providing for that committee that will have no legislative authority whatsoever, $3.7 million. All we are asking, Mr. Speaker, is that we have a chance, a chance to debate the issue of funding for the Ethics Committee here on the floor. That is why I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. Why? Because while this new committee that will have no legislative authority whatsoever will receive $3.7 million, we are simply asking for what is being denied, and that is a chance for $1 million to be provided so that our Members will not be facing the weekend situation that Mr. Lungren just described where he sent a letter to the Ethics Committee, asked for a response about going on a trip, and he didn't receive approval until a week after the trip was to take place. Mrs. Jones and Mr. Hastings came before the House Administration Committee and made this request for additional funding; and Mr. Hastings, representing Mrs. Jones before the Rules Committee, asked that this amendment be made in order. Mr. Speaker, any Member who votes for the previous question is denying this institution the opportunity to consider implementing the resources that are necessary to hold us to the highest possible ethical standards. Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Amendment to H. Res. 219 Offered by Rep. Dreier of California At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, after conclusion of the time for debate on the resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider the amendment in section 3, if offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington or his designee. The amendment shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment or demand for division of the question. Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as follows: In section l(b), strike ``Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, $4,994,181;'' and insert ``Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, $6,119,301;''. In section 2(b), strike ``Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, $2,460,915;'' and insert ``Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, $2,996,561;''. In section 3(b), strike ``Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, $2,533,266;'' and insert ``Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, $3,122,740;''. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.